Re: Suggestion

To: RPG at SU-AI

Subject: Re: Suggestion

From: Fahlman at CMU-20C

Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1982 03:28:00 -0000

In-reply-to: Your message of 19-Jan-82 1851-EST

Dick,
Your suggestion makes sense for implementations that are just getting started
now, but for those of us who have already got something designed, coded, an
close to up (and that includes most of the implementations that anyone now
cares about) I'm not sure that identifying and concentrating on a kernel is
a good move. Sequence functions are quite pervasive and I, for one, would
like to see this issue settled soon. Multiples, on the other hand, are fairly
localized. Is there some implementation that is being particularly screwed
by the ordering of the current ad hoc agenda?
-- Scott
-------
I think it is possible for us to not define the kernel explicitly but to
identify those decisions that definitely apply to the kernel as opposed to
the non-kernel. It would seem that an established implementation would rather
know now about any changes to its kernel than later. I suggest that the
order of decisions be changed to decide `kernelish' issues first.
-rpg-